POPLA Decisions 9 March 2013 at 6:49PM edited 28 October 2016 at 9:29AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking 4.2K replies 904.3K views

Umkomaas

I notice the PCN states the Parking charge is £120 and yet the signage stipulates £100. The appellant did not enter into a contract where he agreed to pay £120 if he failed to comply with the terms and conditions. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract the PCN has been issued incorrectly and as such, I must allow the appeal.

That puts a nice little dent in the PCS-issued £120 NtKs on behalf of small-fry operators!

Coupon-mad

Well spotted by Castle, in post #11 of the thread, when talking about the PCS habit of adding £20 to a NTK which follows a windscreen PCN:

Castle wrote: »

The increase to £120 means that the NTK fails to repeat the information on the NTD; and therefore, they have failed to comply with the requirements of POFA.

Bramshaw

No contest from APCOA

Car was parked in a station car park that had questionable markings (the driver took one view, APCOA the other), but the correct ticket was purchased and there was no obstruction.

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxxxx.

APCOA Parking have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

Original thread.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5884932#topofpage

beamerguy

Bramshaw wrote: »

No contest from APCOA

Car was parked in a station car park that had questionable markings (the driver took one view, APCOA the other), but the correct ticket was purchased and there was no obstruction.

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxxxx.

APCOA Parking have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

Original thread.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5884932#topofpage

Well done, just goes to show that APCOA were scamming
you in the first place

Umkomaas

I wonder just how many POPLA cases APCOA contest? Precious few I'd hazard, suggesting they never had a legitimate case in the first place.

Unfortunately, neither APCOA nor POPLA (nor the BPA for that matter) are open to FOI examination.

Spartan_Saver

CASE BACKGROUND: I parked in Gallagher Retail park in Bristol in May of 2018, after a long drive on the motor way in the early hours of the morning. Parking Eye initially and swiftly rejected my claim that the parking lot was unlit and no signs were visible. I contested this with POPLA and re-visited the site around the same time and took photos and videos which proved that there is hardly any lighting in the retail park, let alone enough signs. BIG Thank You to everyone that helped me on the MSE forum.


Decision - Successful
Assessor Name xxxxx

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket or parking without a valid permit or by not entering your vehicle registration details via the terminal.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the signs were unlit and not visible to the driver in the dark at the time of the vehicles entry into the car park at 03:30.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. The operator has provided photographs of the terms and conditions, as displayed throughout the site, which state, “…No parking between 00:00 – 06:00…Failure to comply with terms and conditions will result in a parking charge of £100 The operator has provided images from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, which shows the appellant’s vehicle entered the site at 03:30 and exited the site at 04:50. A total stay of one hour and 20 minutes. The appellant explains that when he entered the car park, it was in darkness and he could not see any signs advising of the terms and conditions of the site. Given this, I must consider the signage in place at this location to see if it was sufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of the driver when entering and parking at the location. Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice states, “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective.” In this case, the operator has not provided any images of the signage during the hours of darkness, which is when the appellant was on site. As such, we don’t know that the signs are actually lit/sufficiently lit. As the appellant has said that the signs are not visible in the dark, it falls to the operator to show that they are visible. As they have failed to do that, then we can’t determine that the appellant did see the signs. After considering the evidence provided by both the appellant and the operator, I am not satisfied that there was sufficient signage in place at the time of the contravention. As such, I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly.

Coupon-mad

In this case, the operator has not provided any images of the signage during the hours of darkness, which is when the appellant was on site. As such, we don’t know that the signs are actually lit/sufficiently lit. As the appellant has said that the signs are not visible in the dark, it falls to the operator to show that they are visible.

It is actually quite shocking that it's not illegal to pretend to have formed a contract with a consumer, based on unlit signs in the dark (actually, under the Consumer Rights Act, it probably is)...

Well done!

Redx

must be PARKING EYE , as Private Eye is a magazine edited by Ian Hislop of HIGNFY fame

hooley01

Company: Britannia Parking
Location: Radcliffe on Trent - Royal Oak
Parking Date: June 2018
POPLA Decision: September 2018
Result: No Contest from Britannia Parking

Arguments:
1. Grace Period – BPA Code of Practice – Non-compliance
2. Signs in This Car Park Are Not Prominent, Clear or Legible from All Parking Spaces
3. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - The Operator Is Put to Strict Proof of Full Compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
4. No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK Does Not Meet PoFA 2012 Requirements
5. Vehicle Images Contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – Non-compliance
6. The ANPR System Is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
7. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of What the ANPR Data Will Be Used For
8. Failure to Comply with the Data Protection 'ICO Code of Practice' Applicable to ANPR (No Information about SAR Rights, No Privacy Statement, No Evaluation to Justify That 24/7 ANPR Enforcement at This Site Is Justified, Fair and Proportionate). A Serious BPA Code of Practice Breach
9. No Planning Permission or Advertising Consent from Rushcliffe Borough Council for Pole-Mounted Signage or Large Wall-Mounted Signage
10. The Operator Has Not Shown That the Individual Who It Is Pursuing Is in Fact the Driver Who May Have Been Potentially Liable for the Charge

PDF of Redacted Appeal:
!!!!!!/2wP8RM2

DOCX of Redacted Appeal:
!!!!!!/2NnNbAk

Thanks to everyone who took the time to post their own appeals!

Coupon-mad

Well done!